DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
1. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. Claim(s) 20 - 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saito et al. (10476031).
With regard to claim 20, Saito et al. disclose a display device (for example, see fig. 9C), comprising:
a first substrate (111) having a first area (referred to as “AA” by examiner’s annotation shown in fig. 9C below) and a second area (referred to as “NA” by examiner’s annotation shown in fig. 9C below) laterally adjacent to the first area (AA);
an inorganic layer (referred to as “217A” by examiner’s annotation shown in fig. 9C below; wherein the inorganic portion layer 217A is a portion of the inorganic layer 217; for example, see column 8, lines 45 - 49) disposed on the first area (AA) of the first substrate (111) and not disposed on the second area (NA) of the first substrate (111);
a first planarization layer (referred to as “218A1” by examiner’s annotation shown in fig. 9C below) on the inorganic layer (217A);
a second planarization layer (referred to as “218A2” by examiner’s annotation shown in fig. 9C below) on the second area (NA) of the first substrate (111);
a first bank (referred to as “24A1” by examiner’s annotation shown in fig. 9C below) on the first planarization layer (218A1);
a second bank (referred to as “24A2” by examiner’s annotation shown in fig. 9C below) on the second planarization layer (218A2); and
a plurality of moisture permeation suppression patterns (patterns 291, 293 of a moisture-proof film 29, made of silicon nitride and the same material as applicant’s moisture patterns, functioning as a plurality of moisture permeation suppression patterns; wherein the moisture-proof patterns 291, 293 acts as a plurality of moisture permeation suppression patterns by restricting, slowing, or completely blocking the transfer of liquid or vapor through a substrate. These patterns are inherently designed to manage moisture levels, prevent water damage, and ensure the integrity of materials in construction, packaging; for example, column 18, lines 61 – 65) on the second planarization layer (218A2),
the plurality of moisture permeation suppression patterns (291, 293) spaced apart from one another;
wherein the second area (NA) corresponds to an edge portion (a top surface functions as an edge portion) of the first substrate (111), and
wherein the second planarization layer (218A2) disposed on the second area (NA) is indirectly contact with a side surface (a sidewall) of the inorganic layer (217A).
PNG
media_image1.png
591
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 21, Saito et al. disclose the plurality of moisture permeation suppression patterns (291, 293) are spaced apart from one another in a vertical direction.
With regard to claim 22, Saito et al. disclose the plurality of moisture permeation suppression patterns (291, 293) at least partially offset (partially offset of the portions of the moisture patterns 291, 293, as shown in fig. 9C) from one another in a vertical direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
591
702
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. Claim(s) 1 - 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (10476031) in view of Shi et al. (10109754).
With regard to claim 1, Saito et al. disclose a display device (for example, see fig. 9C), comprising:
a first substrate (111) which includes an active area (referred to as “AA” by examiner’s annotation shown in fig. 9C below) including a plurality of sub pixels (each of sub-pixels including light emitting device 10W; for example, see column 6, lines 7 – 16) and a non-active area (referred to as “NA” by examiner’s annotation shown in fig. 9C below) enclosing the active area (AA),
the first substrate (111) includes an inside portion (referred to as “A1” by examiner’s annotation shown in fig. 9C below) and an edge portion (referred to as “A2” by examiner’s annotation shown in fig. 9C below; wherein the edge portion A2 is a small top surface edge of the small substrate area) that is outside of the inside portion (A1);
an inorganic layer (referred to as “217A” by examiner’s annotation shown in fig. 9C below; wherein the inorganic portion layer 217A is a portion of the inorganic layer 217; for example, see column 8, lines 45 - 49) which is disposed on the first substrate (111) and has an end (a lateral end) located at the inside portion (A1) of the first substrate (111), and the edge portion (A2) of the first substrate (111) being offset from the inorganic layer (217A);
a planarization layer (218) disposed on the inorganic layer (217A) and the first substrate (111); and
a bank (a pixel-defining insulating layer 24, as shown in fig. 9C, functioning as a bank) disposed on the planarization layer (218), wherein the planarization layer (218) includes a first planarization layer (referred to as “218A1” by examiner’s annotation shown in fig. 9C below) disposed in an area which overlaps the inorganic layer (217A) and a second planarization layer (referred to as “218A2” by examiner’s annotation shown in fig. 9C below) that covers a top surface of the edge portion of the first substrate (111), the bank (24) includes a first bank (referred to as “24A1” by examiner’s annotation shown in fig. 9C below) disposed on the first planarization layer (218A1) and a second bank (referred to as “24A2” by examiner’s annotation shown in fig. 9C below) disposed on the second planarization layer (218A2), and
a combined thickness (referred to as “T2” by examiner’s annotation shown in fig. 9C below) of the second planarization layer and the second bank is smaller than a combined thicknesses of the first planarization layer and the first bank.
PNG
media_image3.png
609
796
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
606
770
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Saito et al. do not clearly disclose the substrate is formed a transparent conducting oxide.
However, Shi et al. disclose the substrate (412) is formed a transparent conducting oxide. (for example, column 14, lines 9 – 12, figs. 4 - 6).
PNG
media_image5.png
258
489
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Saito et al.’s device to have the substrate is formed a transparent conducting oxide as taught by Shi et al. in order to enhance a high light efficiency of the device for enhancing a stability operation of the semiconductor device, as is known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 2, Saito et al. disclose the first bank (24A1) and the second bank (24A2) are connected (indirectly connected).
With regard to claim 3, Saito et al. disclose the first bank (24A1) and the second bank (24A2) are spaced apart from each other.
With regard to claim 4, Saito et al. disclose a first moisture permeation suppression layer (a first layer 291 of a moisture-proof film 29, made of silicon nitride and the same material as applicant’s moisture layer, functioning as a first moisture permeation suppression layer; wherein the moisture-proof layer 291 acts as a moisture permeation suppression layer by restricting, slowing, or completely blocking the transfer of liquid or vapor through a substrate. This layer is inherently designed to manage moisture levels, prevent water damage, and ensure the integrity of materials in construction, packaging; for example, column 18, lines 61 – 65), which is disposed on the second planarization layer (218A2) and includes an inorganic material (silicon nitride; for example, column 18, lines 61 – 65); and
a second moisture permeation suppression layer (a first layer 293 of a moisture-proof film 29, made of silicon nitride and the same material as applicant’s moisture layer functioning as a second moisture permeation suppression layer; wherein the moisture-proof layer 293 acts as a moisture permeation suppression layer by restricting, slowing, or completely blocking the transfer of liquid or vapor through a substrate. This layer is inherently designed to manage moisture levels, prevent water damage, and ensure the integrity of materials in construction, packaging; for example, column 18, lines 61 – 65) which is disposed on the second bank (24A2) and includes an inorganic material (silicon nitride; for example, column 18, lines 61 – 65).
PNG
media_image4.png
606
770
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 5, Saito et al. disclose a plurality of first moisture permeation suppression patterns (portion layers 291A1 as annotated in fig. 9C of a moisture-proof film 29, made of silicon nitride and the same material as applicant’s moisture patterns, functioning as a plurality of first moisture permeation suppression patterns; wherein the moisture-proof layers 291A1 acts as the moisture permeation suppression patterns by restricting, slowing, or completely blocking the transfer of liquid or vapor through a substrate. These layers are inherently designed to manage moisture levels, prevent water damage, and ensure the integrity of materials in construction, packaging; for example, column 18, lines 61 – 65) which are disposed on the second planarization layer (218A2) and include an inorganic material (for example, column 18, lines 61 – 65); and a plurality of second moisture permeation suppression patterns (portion layers 293A1 as annotated in fig. 9C of a moisture-proof film 29, made of silicon nitride and the same material as applicant’s moisture patterns, functioning as a plurality of second moisture permeation suppression patterns; wherein the moisture-proof layers 293A1 acts as the moisture permeation suppression patterns by restricting, slowing, or completely blocking the transfer of liquid or vapor through a substrate. These layers are inherently designed to manage moisture levels, prevent water damage, and ensure the integrity of materials in construction, packaging; for example, column 18, lines 61 – 65) which are disposed on the second bank (24A2) and include an inorganic material (for example, column 18, lines 61 – 65).
With regard to claim 6, Saito et al. disclose the plurality of first moisture permeation suppression patterns (291A1) and the plurality of second moisture permeation suppression patterns (293A2) are spaced apart from each other and the plurality of second moisture permeation suppression patterns (293A2) each overlap a space (referred to as “S1” by examiner’s annotation shown in fig. 9C below) among the first moisture permeation suppression patterns (291A1) of the plurality of first moisture permeation suppression patterns (291A1).
PNG
media_image6.png
686
688
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
686
688
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 7, Saito et al. disclose the space (S1) includes a dimension that is larger than a width (referred to as “X1” by examiner’s annotation shown in fig. 9C below) of a second moisture permeation suppression pattern (293A2) of the plurality of second moisture permeation suppression patterns (293A2).
PNG
media_image7.png
749
705
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 8, Saito et al. disclose the plurality of first moisture permeation suppression patterns (291A1) and the plurality of second moisture permeation suppression patterns (293A2) are spaced apart from each other and the plurality of second moisture permeation suppression patterns (293A2) each partially overlaps a first moisture permeation suppression pattern (291A1) of the plurality of first moisture permeation suppression patterns (291A1).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 9 - 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9 - 10 are allowable over the prior art of record, because none of these references disclose or can be combined to yield the claimed invention such as the second planarization layer includes a plurality of patterns which are spaced apart from each other, the plurality of first moisture permeation suppression patterns are disposed on the plurality of patterns and the plurality of second moisture permeation suppression patterns each overlaps a space among patterns of the plurality of patterns as recited in claim 9.
Claims 11 - 12 are allowable over the prior art of record, because none of these references disclose or can be combined to yield the claimed invention such as a plurality of first metal patterns each disposed in a space among first moisture permeation suppression patterns of the plurality of first moisture permeation suppression patterns; and a plurality of second metal patterns each disposed in a space among second moisture permeation suppression patterns of the plurality of second moisture permeation suppression patterns as recited in claim 11.
6. Claims 13 – 19 are allowable over the prior art of record, because none of these references disclose or can be combined to yield the claimed invention such as a plurality of first moisture permeation suppression patterns disposed on the second planarization layer; a second bank disposed on the plurality of first moisture permeation suppression pattern; and a plurality of second moisture permeation suppression patterns disposed on the second bank, wherein the non-active area includes a first non-active area in which a gate driver is disposed, a second non-active area in an area connected to the plurality of flexible films, and a third non-active area which is in an area opposite to the area connected to the plurality of flexible films, first moisture permeation suppression patterns and second moisture permeation suppression patterns disposed in the first non-active area are different from first moisture permeation suppression patterns and second moisture permeation suppression patterns disposed in the second non-active area and the third non-active area as recited in claim 13.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments filed 06/03/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is argued, at pages of the remarks, that “Saito fails to disclose that a second planarization layer is in contact with a side surface of the inorganic layer at the area corresponding to the edge portion of the substrate”. However, fig. 9C of Saito et al. does show the second area (NA) corresponds to an edge portion (a top surface functions as an edge portion) of the first substrate (111), and wherein the second planarization layer (218A2) disposed on the second area (NA) is indirectly contact with a side surface (a sidewall) of the inorganic layer (217A). Since claim 20 does not recite the second planarization layer disposed on the second area (NA) is directly contact with a sidewall surface of the inorganic layer, applicant’s claim 20 does not distinguish over cited reference.
PNG
media_image1.png
591
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is argued, at pages of the remarks, that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to apply the substrate 412 of Shi to the substrate of Saito”. However, in response to applicant's argument that there is no suggestion to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.d. 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.d. 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the applicant made the erroneous assumption that the motivation to combine must be expressly stated in the art of record. From MPEP § 2144:
"The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.d. 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.d. 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Eli Lilly & Co., 902 F.d. 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discussion of reliance on legal precedent); In re Nilssen, 851 F.d. 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning)." [Emphasis added]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Saito et al.’s device to have the substrate is formed a transparent conducting oxide as taught by Shi et al. in order to enhance a high light efficiency of the device for enhancing a stability operation of the semiconductor device, as is known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAN N TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272 - 1923. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davienne Monbleau can be reached on (571) 272-1945. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAN N TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights